This is an idiotic sentiment. There is no indication that he will not be healthy enough to return and even if he is not there is no lack of stability at the top. There is probably not one person at Apple that would not prefer the current state of affairs over his simply resigning tomorrow.

Why is it that you keep advocating that Apple divest itself of its important assets (Steve and its massive warchest) for some short term benefits?

If he wishes to and can stay more years and die in the saddle that gives him more time to completing his lifelong ambitions which are very close, I think, to realization. The iPad is probably a few revisions away from really changing the face of computing in the way he expected the Mac to do all those years ago.

Thank you for your typically polite and civil comments.

First, the only indications we have are that he's not healthy enough to be CEO, because this is his third leave of absence, during which time he will not be at Apple running the company, and unlike the previous leave, no return date has been mentioned. This raises obvious questions for which Apple provides no answers, obvious or otherwise.

Second, I have not advocated either of the things you attribute to me. I have suggested that Steve continue as chairman of the board, which keeps him in a very influential position but places the management of the company's business in the hands of someone who comes to the office. I suggested that Apple provide the stockholders with a dividend which would still allow them to accumulate cash, only at a very slightly slower rate.

Second, I have not advocated either of the things you attribute to me. I have suggested that Steve continue as chairman of the board, which keeps him in a very influential position but places the management of the company's business in the hands of someone who comes to the office.

That's worked out really well for Microsoft hasn't it? Without Gates it's been a spiral downhill at the hands of Ballmer.

Steve should remain CEO until such time it is proven he can no longer fill the position.

Quote:

I suggested that Apple provide the stockholders with a dividend which would still allow them to accumulate cash, only at a very slightly slower rate.

What you have stated is that there is no possible way that Apple could responsibly use their accumulated cash and continue to ignore all the provided scenarios where that level of holdings is prudent and useful. I don't recall the exact amount you suggested was a "responsible" amount but it was absurdly low.

First, the only indications we have are that he's not healthy enough to be CEO, because this is his third leave of absence, during which time he will not be at Apple running the company, and unlike the previous leave, no return date has been mentioned. This raises obvious questions for which Apple provides no answers, obvious or otherwise.

It's funny. I take this, the fact that he chose to retain the CEO position and to also stay on as a Disney board member to suggest that this will be a short absence.

That's worked out really well for Microsoft hasn't it? Without Gates it's been a spiral downhill at the hands of Ballmer.

Because Ballmer is not competent to run the company and the only reason he is running the company is that he's an old FOB. Are you saying that Tim Cook is another Steve Ballmer?

Quote:

Steve should remain CEO until such time it is proven he can no longer fill the position.

Proven by whom and to whom?

Quote:

What you have stated is that there is no possible way that Apple could responsibly use their accumulated cash and continue to ignore all the provided scenarios where that level of holdings is prudent and useful. I don't recall the exact amount you suggested was a "responsible" amount but it was absurdly low.

I haven't ignored anything. In fact I've responded to many of these proposals. Perhaps you should not have opinions about things you don't recall.

Quote:

Originally Posted by penchanted

It's funny. I take this, the fact that he chose to retain the CEO position and to also stay on as a Disney board member to suggest that this will be a short absence.

That's one interpretation. It's kind of a Rorschach test, isn't it? I'm trying not to see only what I want to see. I have no idea what it means. I can only say that it's a concern that the CEO will not be on duty for an unspecified period of time.

That's one interpretation. It's kind of a Rorschach test, isn't it? I'm trying not to see only what I want to see. I have no idea what it means. I can only say that it's a concern that the CEO will not be on duty for an unspecified period of time.

I understand and cannot fault you in your thinking. I am pretty pragmatic but might lean to the optimistic where Apple is concerned - I have been purchasing Apple shares since the 90's including during the dark days.

One other thought. Jobs mentioned that he loves Apple and I think he truly believes that if his personal situation would be a long-term drag on Apple, he would drop the CEO position. This is more or less an act of faith in Jobs good judgment. As I mentioned in another post, I believe that about six months after his return from the LOA that Jobs will set the succession into motion. I think he would want this to happen when he is perceived as relatively healthy rather than under the current situation. It would just be more "orderly".

I understand and cannot fault you in your thinking. I am pretty pragmatic but might lean to the optimistic where Apple is concerned - I have been purchasing Apple shares since the 90's including during the dark days.

One other thought. Jobs mentioned that he loves Apple and I think he truly believes that if his personal situation would be a long-term drag on Apple, he would drop the CEO position. This is more or less an act of faith in Jobs good judgment. As I mentioned in another post, I believe that about six months after his return from the LOA that Jobs will set the succession into motion. I think he would want this to happen when he is perceived as relatively healthy rather than under the current situation. It would just be more "orderly".

You and me both.

I'd like to believe that Steve hasn't got his ego too invested in Apple to see when his personal situation is harming the company he loves. He's certainly had periods of fallibility in his life, and as a general matter I'd never assume that anyone, no matter how brilliant and insightful, can't lose track of important issues, often because they are too close to them. I just don't know, and I'd like to. I guess I don't have blind faith in my genes.

Because Ballmer is not competent to run the company and the only reason he is running the company is that he's an old FOB. Are you saying that Tim Cook is another Steve Ballmer?

I'm saying that chairman isn't a useful slot for Jobs.

Quote:

Proven by whom and to whom?

By Steve to the board.

Quote:

I haven't ignored anything. In fact I've responded to many of these proposals. Perhaps you should not have opinions about things you don't recall.

I could go look it up but it is a waste of my time to do so. It was absurd at the time, and it is still absurd. The fact remains that when it is pointed out that all major tech companies have large warchests and that tech capex is huge you simply ignore it or dismiss it. I suppose simply saying "dismissing" is "responding" as opposed to "ignoring" in a conversation but is still ignoring reality.

In theory only. The ability of the board to independently make this assessment is questionable.

Quote:

I could go look it up but it is a waste of my time to do so. It was absurd at the time, and it is still absurd. The fact remains that when it is pointed out that all major tech companies have large warchests and that tech capex is huge you simply ignore it or dismiss it. I suppose simply saying "dismissing" is "responding" as opposed to "ignoring" in a conversation but is still ignoring reality.

Nope. You are simply making up arguments and assigning them to me. Convenient for you perhaps, but not accurate.

I'd like to believe that Steve hasn't got his ego too invested in Apple to see when his personal situation is harming the company he loves. He's certainly had periods of fallibility in his life, and as a general matter I'd never assume that anyone, no matter how brilliant and insightful, can't lose track of important issues, often because they are too close to them. I just don't know, and I'd like to. I guess I don't have blind faith in my genes.

Part of my faith comes from his handling of the Pixar - which was also very dear to him - sale. However, Steve is clearly more emotionally invested in Apple than he was in Pixar which may somewhat cloud his judgment. I still have faith that he will ultimately do what is best for Apple.

I think Steve is confident that he has built an enormously talented team to lead Apple in the future. You mentioned in another thread that Tim Cook has been essentially been the CEO in all but title for some time and I think you are right. I just think that Steve wants the transition initiated by his decision - he might like creating chaos for his competitors but he seems to insist on order in what surrounds him.

I am not sure there is any other choice if Jobs' health precludes him from carrying out the duties of CEO. I agree that it would , indeed, be awkward since most COBs don't get that actively involved in product design, but then again, neither do most CEOs. As board chairman, Steve most certainly could drive broad priorities. especially as they relate to any additional business opportunities (e.g., what they do with their massive cash hoard).

I certainly hope that Apple would not create some silly position for him like CTO (he's not that technically inclined) or Chief Inspiration Officer . And I don't like the idea of co-CEOs at Apple any better than I do at RIM.

Part of my faith comes from his handling of the Pixar - which was also very dear to him - sale. However, Steve is clearly more emotionally invested in Apple than he was in Pixar which may somewhat cloud his judgment. I still have faith that he will ultimately do what is best for Apple.

I think Steve is confident that he has built an enormously talented team to lead Apple in the future. You mentioned in another thread that Tim Cook has been essentially been the CEO in all but title for some time and I think you are right. I just think that Steve wants the transition initiated by his decision - he might like creating chaos for his competitors but he seems to insist on order in what surrounds him.

I hope you're right, and lets hope that Tim Cook doesn't get headhunted before Steve decides to let him become the CEO for real.